Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Dr M, we don’t need your racist rants
At odds over sacred word
'Don't equate Merdeka with Sabah IC project'
Reflections on democracy and populism
Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, I challenge you to a debate!
Listen, listen, listen! Have we gone overboard?
Peanuts for landowners, millions for cronies

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 03:39 PM PST

Unlike the 200,000 Sabah immigrants, the pre-independence immigrants were not illegal immigrants. Our forefathers worked and many gave their lives to the building of Malaysia. Our forefathers fought along the Malays to gain independence. Unlike in Sabah where the immigrants were given citizenship for your political agenda.

By S Vell Paari, FMT

PETALING JAYA: MIC strategic director S Vell Paari responds to former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's recent claims on citizenship rights.

Mahathir's claim: If the government can form a commission to probe the citizenship given to some 200,000 Sabah immigrants, he asked "why not on those pre-independence immigrants?"

Vell Paari's response: Unlike the 200,000 Sabah immigrants, the pre-independence immigrants were not illegal immigrants. Our forefathers worked and many gave their lives to the building of Malaysia. Our forefathers fought along the Malays to gain independence. Unlike in Sabah where the immigrants were given citizenship for your political agenda.

Mahathir's claim: He said the Malays generously allowed the immigrants to be citizens, speak their languages and practise their respective cultures, something that even neighbouring Thai and Indonesian natives failed to do.

Vell Paari's response: Like Malaysia there are also immigrants in Thailand and Indonesia from China and India who are allowed to practice their respective culture and languages. Unlike your discriminating views, a Chinese became PM of Thailand and the current PM of Thailand is of the same non-Thai bloodline. In Indonesia I have Indian friends who are either second or third generation Indonesians and they speak in Tamil. In Indonesia they even had a picture of Lord Ganesha on their currency. Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced. They have greater freedom of religion. Would you have allowed that under your prime ministership? Please do not create tension for our country with Indonesia and Thailand to justify your lame excuse.

Mahathir's claim: He added that those who can't use the brain to think wisely were equivalent to animals.

Vell Paari's response: Just because you have a warped process of thinking, don't insult others. On the same point, don't also insult animals. Unlike you, they were not evil enough to send Anwar Ibrahim to jail to rid of a political opponent. For your political survival for six years, you denied him to his family. Don't mistake me, I am a BN politician and it's in my DNA to make Pakatan Rakyat look bad and it's in Pakatan's DNA to do vice versa but they are my political opponents and not enemy. Sometimes political agenda must be set aside to do what is right for Malaysia as a whole.

Unlike you, they are not evil enough to attack a man who was going throught a personal issue as in the case of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. A man who during his prime ministership was going through the pain of his wife suffering from a terminal illness. A man who was torn between the duties to his wife and country. If you were in his shoes, would you been able to cope? I doubt it. During the Bosnian conflict, you broke out in tears and could not speak. You cried as they were of your faith but in the case of Tun Badawi, knowing his personal grievous, you still hounded him with no emotion and humanity. And you still do.

Mahathir's claim: He lamented that the immigrants were now plotting to remove the Malay privileges.

Vell Paari's response: Well what did you do in Sabah by giving 200,000 illegal immigrants citizenship. Were they Malays? More like Pakistanis and Filipinos. You plotted to remove the rights and privileges of the Sabah people. Let's be frank and say that this was done to reduce the majority of Christians in Sabah.

You gave citizenship to a MNLF commander and his fighters. You jeopardised the national security of the country. You have sent people to ISA on lesser charges. You committed treason in playing with the country's national security for your political agenda.

READ MORE HERE

At odds over sacred word

Posted: 19 Jan 2013 11:47 AM PST

Hadi has become known for his flip-flops but this particular issue has cast more doubts on his ability to lead the party. It is clear he cannot be relied upon to defend the party's interests and he will be lucky if PAS retains him as president at the party polls due this year.

Joceline Tan, The Star

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu was walking on cloud nine after the success of his Stadium Merdeka rally. He had pulled off something big and his supporters claimed the event had raised his profile in PAS.

Mat Sabu, as he is known by all and sundry, is aware that not everyone in PAS thinks highly of him because he lacks the religious credentials demanded of top PAS leaders. He knows that party members call him "Raja Lawak" (king of laughs) but they would have to take him more seriously after this.

But the bubble burst on Sunday night when news trickled out that the Syura Council of Ulama, the party's highest decision-making body, had ruled that the word "Allah" is sacred to Islam and cannot be used to describe God in any non-Muslim religious books.

Alwi: 'Road to paradise lies in Islam, and not in PAS'

The Syura Council said the "kalimah Allah" could not be used as the translation for the word God from any other language.

The Syura Council overturned what Mat Sabu along with his party's two top leaders, Mursyidul Am Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Matand president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, had been telling the media just days earlier that non-Muslims can use the term "Allah" as long as they do not misuse it against Islam.

Mat Sabu's stand even won praise from Dr Paul Tan, the controversial Catholic Bishop who has raised many an eyebrow with remarks that have made him sound more like a politician than a man of the cloth.

But Mat Sabu has since done a U-turn, saying that "my stand is the same as the Syura Council"; and the Bishop who has been waltzing with PAS is now dancing solo.

Everyone in PAS has fallen in line because the Syura Council is the most powerful body in PAS and the decision was pushed by the party's leading scholar in usuluddin (Islamic faith) Datuk Dr Haron Din. He is the sort who speaks softly but carries a big stick, and he has used the stick to great effect.

It was an embarrassing blow to Hadi and Nik Aziz because they are big names.

Dr Haron had been deeply disturbed by the compromises made on the "kalimah Allah" issue since 2010. Everyone has noticed how he has scaled back on political activities in the party but he has held his tongue.

He was also furious that Hadi had given the go-ahead for the use of "kalimah Allah" without first going through the Syura Council.

Nik Amar: 'Muslims sensitive about sacred word'

Hadi had appeared at a press conference together with DAP's Lim Kit Siang and PKR's Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the same day the Sultan of Selangor released a stern reminder to Selangorians that there is a state fatwa on the usage of the term.

Many in PAS were shocked by Hadi's action. They thought it showed poor judgement and some claimed he was manipulated by the Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

Some claimed this is what happens when the top leadership of PAS is made up of non-ulama figures apart from Hadi, the deputy president and the three vice-presidents are non-ulama.

PAS Dewan Ulama chief Datuk Harun Taib, also a member of the Syura Council, told people he could not understand why the party was so concerned about pleasing people on the west coast when it should be looking after its traditional supporters in Terengganu and Kelantan.

Mohamad: Went from cloud nine to a burst bubble.

People like Harun are convinced the faith would be in serious jeopardy without strict control over the "Allah" term.

"Muslims are very sensitive with the usage of certain sacred words. I am very relieved and I thank the Almighty for the decision of the Syura Council," said Kelantan state exco member Datuk Nik Amar Nik Abdullah.

Nik Amar is normally quite a jovial person but he has been in a grim mood over the issue. He admitted that he is upset with DAP leader Lim Guan Eng for raising it.

"He should not touch on it," said Nik Amar who is also the deputy state PAS commissioner.

'Don't equate Merdeka with Sabah IC project'

Posted: 18 Jan 2013 03:18 PM PST

The national consensus on citizenship brokered before Malaya's independence cannot be equated with the controversial move to grant citizenship to foreigners in Sabah, policy thinkers say.

Chua Sue-Ann, fz.com

This view is being aired as former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has sought to justify his administration's "Project IC" in Sabah by comparing it to first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra's push for Chinese and Indians in Malaya to receive citizenship.

Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, director of think tank Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI), said the comparison was wrong as the two citizenship exercises were carried out for different reasons.

"This is not a fair comparison. One was for independence whereas the other was for votes. The motive for granting them citizenship (in Sabah) was to fish for votes and purely political. Citizenship was one of the negotiation points for Merdeka.

"The British would not have given independence so easily if the non-Malays were denied citizenship. They had been there for many generations and had toiled to develop the country," Navaratnam told fz.com in a phone interview.

Malaysia should stop harping on the citizenship agreement made during the struggle for independence and focus on the road ahead, Navaratnam added.

"There are so many challenges that we as a nation face today like corruption, cronyism, declining competitiveness and poor education policies. Mahathir's remarks are contrary to the 1Malaysia concept," said Navaratnam, who had served the government for three decades.

Mahathir had on Thursday admitted to granting citizenship to foreigners in Sabah but maintained it was done lawfully.

But Mahathir sought to justify his administration's move by alleging that Tunku Abdul Rahman dished out citizenship to one million people who were "not qualified and not even tested".

Although Mahathir did not specify who these one million people were, his remarks were seen as a reference to the many Malayans of Chinese and Indian descent who were given citizenship when independence was being negotiated with the British powers.

Pre-independence, the proposal to give citizenship to non-Malays was a contentious and arduous process that took several years of multi-party negotiations.

Malaya in 1957 had a population of 5.2 million people comprising 2.2 million Malays and indigenous people and, three million non-Malays, according to a book entitled Malaysia: The Making of A Nation by Cheah Boon Kheng.

In similar vein, Centre for Policy Initiatives director Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Mahathir had no basis to compare the two historical situations.

"What Tunku Abdul Rahman did was open, transparent and with the support of key stakeholders when he agreed to the citizenship clause.

"What Mahathir did was opaque, hidden, known only to a few plotters and basically unjustifiable at the time, today and in the future," Lim said in an e-mailed response.

Lim added that Mahathir's remarks was typical of the latter's "diversion strategy" aimed at shoring up Malay support by stoking racial sentiments.

Sabah's large influx of foreign nationals has been a contentious issue for many years as locals fear an altering of local demographics.

Foreign nationals make up over 27% or 889,000 of Sabah's 3.2 million population, according to witness evidence during the current royal commission of inquiry to investigate the issue of undocumented immigrants in the state.

Aside from altering the state's demographics, Project IC in Sabah was also alleged to be an exercise to give foreign nationals, mostly from the Philippines and Indonesia, citizenship in exchange for votes.

Reflections on democracy and populism

Posted: 18 Jan 2013 03:13 PM PST

IF the government were to devise a scheme where a grandparent could "borrow" future earnings from his grandchild, would the grandparent consent to such an unusual plan?

Khaw Veon Szu, fz.com

Yet, the various popular cash handouts that are now being offered, if continued indefinitely, are akin to intergenerational borrowings that threaten the well-being of future generations with massive financial obligations incurred from the benefits received by today's generation.

A recent statement by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has set alarm bells ringing. According to the media, the deputy prime minister said Putrajaya may double the RM500 cash aid distributed under its Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) programme.

He added that the federal government may even make it a permanent policy should the national income and tax revenue exceed RM125 billion and Barisan Nasional wins the general election.

The first BR1M, paid out to nearly five million families at a cost to taxpayers of RM2.6 billion earlier last year, saw Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's approval rating hit 69%, largely due to a surge among lower-income households. BR1M 2.0's coverage has been extended to unmarried youths.

More than 2.3 million applications had been received as at Dec 17, 2012, with more than 1.6 million from unmarried youths and more than 720,000 from households.

Under the programme, Malaysians with a household income of less than RM3,000 a month are eligible for a one-off cash aid of RM500 while unmarried individuals aged 21 and above and who earn not more than RM2,000 a month are eligible for one-off aid of RM250. BR1M 2.0 is expected to benefit 4.3 million households and 2.7 million unmarried individuals.

An additional RM300 million has been set aside for the Youth Communication Package that offers a oneoff rebate of RM200 to youths aged 21 to 30 with a monthly income of RM3,000 and below for the purchase of a 3G smartphone.

Make no mistake. The Pakatan Rakyat state governments are equally guilty as they pioneered such cash aid programmes after taking over several states in the last general election. These included the Senior Citizens Appreciation Programme, the Single Mother and Disabled Person Programme and the Golden Students Programme, under which eligible recipients receive RM100 each annually.

That is what we fear most about populism. What initially starts out as one-off or ad hoc cash aid measures to win elections might eventually end up as a fixture in our national annual budget.

No wonder many now worry that the battle to win the hearts and minds of the rakyat is fast descending into a mindless competition to put cash into the pockets of voters.

The natural tendency in a democracy is for politicians to promise more and more to fulfil a multitude of the rakyat's incompatible desires. To meet these everincreasing promises, politicians are left with no alternative but to resort to print-ing money or borrowing in epic proportions.

Hence, it is not surprising to learn that Aristotle was of the view that political regimes may be divided according to the number who rule and what kind of rule — good or bad. And here comes the shocker.

If the many, the majority, rule for the sake of true common good, the regime is called a polity; if the many, the majority, rule for their own advantage rather than the common good, the regime is a democracy. This probably explains why our great institutions — the judiciary, Parliament, civil service, free press and the family — have such profound importance. They provide a system of checks and balances against the populism that is such a po-tent force in a democratic system.

They stand for values — decency, fairness, protection of minori-ties, freedom under law — that inevitably come under strain in a democracy. Actually, an obsession with politics is dangerous.

It is factually and patently wrong to assume that democracy is the same as liberty, tolerance and fairness because these values were embedded in public service long before universal suffrage and the emergence of what we think of today as democracy.

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, I challenge you to a debate!

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:49 PM PST

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

Zan Azlee, The Malaysian Insider

You were way out of your depth. It was obviously clear. And that was the reason why you had to pull the microphone away from KS Bawani when she was speaking.

But you definitely had no awareness of this, I'm sure. You thought you were all that in your sophisticated-looking pantsuit and fancy title of President of Suara Wanita.

Trying to go for a SW1M? Try not to sink instead!

You were at a university, Universiti Utara Malaysia, an institution of learning where people go to (where most of them are actually legally adults) obtain an education.

You were a part of a panel at a forum. A panel forum, which I'm very sure, had an objective to bring forth discourse and intellectual discussion, and to share that with the students.

The forum, which was titled "Seiringkah Mahasiswa dan Politik", had given the panellists a chance to speak, and also had a session that was open to the floor, a chance for the students to speak.

If the panellists were allowed to share their thoughts and opinions, then by all means, the members of the floor should be given that chance too. It is a forum anyway.

What right did you have to stop a person from speaking? What right did you have to pull the microphone away from someone when she is speaking?

Is it because you are older? And this is considering the fact that you said to Bawani that she had to learn to respect her elders.

Respecting elders doesn't mean blindly following what they say. Respecting elders is also feeling the responsibility to correct them when they are wrong and heading down the wrong path.

Or did you feel you had a right to pull the microphone away because you thought it was your forum? And, to you, this meant that only you had a right to an opinion?

I really felt that you were just scared. You were scared because suddenly, there was this young girl dressed casually in a long sleeved T-shirt and jeans who could articulate better than you.

I think you felt threatened because this young girl was sharing opinions that were so well thought out and clear that the rest of the attendees might just have been persuaded by her.

Probably the desperation that you felt was so intense that you couldn't do anything else but force her to keep quiet by pulling the microphone away from her so no one could hear her.

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

You just ranted along about how those who didn't like the state Malaysia is in to leave the country. Come on! How stupid do you think people are?

And what is it with the animal analogy? I don't even want to comment on that one! Basically, you didn't even have quality rebuttals for Bawani. You just bullied her away from the microphone.

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:37 PM PST

I am reminded of a scene in the film "Les Misérables", when the young revolutionaries whisper the lyrics "do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry men? It's the music of a people who will not be slaves again!" Though there will not be a revolution as our country is already a democracy, finally being free after 56 years of a BN government is now the idea of a people's victory in Malaysia.

Douglas Tan, The Malaysian Insider

In this day and age, there are YouTube sensations which catapult little known individuals to fame. The K-Pop star, Psy, went from a virtual unknown outside Korea into an international sensation, with his music video "Gangnam Style", garnering 1.2 billion views on YouTube and setting a Guinness world record and spawning masses of parodies including local favourites such as "Oppa KL Style" and "Georgetown Gangnam style".

On the local scene, 2012 was the year of cows in condos, with Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil being lambasted by political leaders and online media, and most prominently being featured in yet another "Gangnam Style" parody, "Ubah Rocket Style" released by the DAP. In 2013, the word of the month seems to be "Listen".

Respect?

For those who are unaware or oblivious of the background, a little known leader of an NGO called Suara Wanita 1 Malaysia or SW1M was propelled to fame when a YouTube video of a woman berating a student went viral on social media circles.

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen reached notoriety, which is almost unparalleled in local politics in terms of ridicule and attention, from a video made at Universiti Utara Malaysia entitled "Forum Suara Mahasiswa Part 4" (translated into "Voice of the Students Forum Part 4"). This virtually happened overnight when she cut off second-year law student Bawani KS mid-way through her question by saying "Listen" 10 times and "Let me speak" seven times despite Bawani's protests.

The crux of Bawani's question was whether Malaysia would be able to move towards a system where university education could be provided for free. This is reflective of a promise being made by Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, to abolish PTPTN and provide free tertiary education to Malaysians. What proceeded from Sharifah Zohra's interruption was ludicrous.

She then thanked Bawani for "having the guts" to ask the question, before turning to ask the students whether she had accorded "respect" to Bawani. At this point in the video, I began to feel sick inside because what she proceeded to do was nothing short of humiliating.

She mocked Bawani's attitude, said she is less "pendidikan" compared to her, asked her to leave the country if she is unhappy with the government's policies, and then proceeded to say the now famous "even animals have problems". If there was anyone who was being disrespectful, it was Sharifah Zohra. Her reply was not only "kurang ajar", it was a classic red herring.

For many online netizens who vented their frustrations, she epitomised the Barisan Nasional government: arrogant, out of touch, emotionally cold and vindictive. Bawani, on the other hand, achieved hero status by being the underdog, standing up for her beliefs and daring to question the authorities.

Neitzen's revenge

Although the forum itself took place on December 8 last year, the outpouring of wrath and ridicule only culminated in the past week. The parodies, Photoshopped pictures and even music "re-mixes" have all gone viral, especially on Facebook, with countless "likes" and "shares". There has also been a Facebook page opened dedicated to asking Sharifah Zohra to apologise to Bawani. Eventually this was highlighted on Yahoo! News and then the mainstream media just a couple of days ago.

The controversy has also given birth to a slew of marketing opportunities. Yes 4G, DiGi and Nandos came out with their own "Listen" campaigns to great effect, catching the wave of emotion crashing against Sharifah Zohra. I admit that I also got caught up in all of this, going so far as to order a "Listen, Listen" T-shirt!

There seems to be no end to the scorn poured on Sharifah Zohra and Barisan Nasional from this sordid episode. What is apparent is that there is a lot of pent-up rage which is being poured out, which is far larger than Sharifah Zohra herself.

There is the anger at the BN for attempting to brainwash university students. There is also the arrogance and oppressiveness of the party which is personified in how Sharifah Zohra attacked Bawani. Subsequent to all of this, there is also the unrepentant recalcitrance by Sharifah Zohra not issuing an apology and with the SW1M Facebook page posting updates defending their president.

It may be an understatement to say that this may be worrying to Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his colleagues with the general election looming.

Gone too far?

However, in the midst of all this emotion, there were two of my friends who kept their heads to ask some very logical questions about the situation. Kelvin Yii posted a very meaningful video blog, providing a logical commentary and asking crucial questions as to the state of affairs transpiring from the event. Another friend, Tai Zee Kin, proceeded to ask a very honest question, as to whether all the persistent mocking, joking and parodies would make us any better than Sharifah Zohra herself? Have we gone too far?

Politics, it appears, finds its basis on emotional hyperbole rather than constructive, rational discussion. Taking a step back, are we being excessively harsh on Sharifah Zohra? Perhaps so, especially where there are individuals in high political positions who had made blatantly racist or arrogant statements in the media in the past. Sharifah Zohra perhaps is a victim of circumstances.

Was what she did acceptable then? No it was not. Shall we feel too sorry for her then? Maybe not. But then again, have we as netizens allowed for emotion to usurp logical and pragmatic discussion? Yes, but I believe that it mostly down to the fact that we are guilty of jumping on the "bash Sharifah Zohra" bandwagon.

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 01:47 PM PST

The moment your land is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. It will be taken away from you in the name of development.

By Chua Jui Meng

Now the Malays are beginning to see through Umno's 55 years of misleading the community to enrich themselves, their families and cronies.

It sure took a long time for the Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia and several non-governmental organisations to finally see the real problem – the super corrupt and greedy Umno.

Chamber president Syed Ali Alattas lamented that the Malays in Johor are the poorest in Malaysia, with cost of living skyrocketing due to the significant presence of foreigners (Singaporeans) residing in the state.

He also pointed to the fact that 80% of the former Malay-majority owned Iskandar land was now foreign-owned.

Syed Ali said even the Malays in Kelantan were richer because one can buy more with the ringgit in the east coast state.

The Malays can buy a bungalow for RM200,000 in Kelantan but the same would cost RM1.5 million in Johor.

In the past two decades, thousands of acres of Malay ancestral land had been "robbed" by former Menteri Besar Muhyiddin Yassin and now the Ghani Othman-led Johor government is using the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Just look and tell me what you see in Tebrau, Pasir Gudang, Danga Bay, Iskandar and Nusajaya.

And the latest to benefit from the "seized" Malay land is China's Country Garden (Holdings) Ltd.

It bought 55 acres in Iskandar's Danga Bay for RM900 million for property development. The state government, using the Act, had paid the majority Malay land owners only 64 sen psf or RM1.53 million.

Now, locals just cannot afford the houses and condominiums priced from RM800,000 and above. And these properties are on land previously belonging to Malays.

Blame Dr Mahathir

In fact the land grabs in Johor have been going on the past two decades, starting with Muhyiddin, and now with Ghani and his government using the Act to acquire land to be alienated to cronies for property development.

And the person Malaysians have to thank for such an opportunity to abuse and grab land is Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It was Mahathir, using Barisan Nasional (BN)'s overwhelming majority in Parliament in 1991, who passed the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill.

The rephrasing of sections of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 basically gave incontestable power to state governments to seize private land for development by private companies and individuals. Lands originally acquired for public purposes can also be used for private development.

Before the amendments, land could only be acquired for public purposes or for public utilities like building of roads, schools, hospitals, pipelines, water or power plants, etc.

With the addition of "…for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia", no land is safe.

The term "beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia" is as subjective as you can get. A piece of land can be acquired to build a posh five-star hotel, an amusement park or a golf resort because in the opinion of the government it would bring in the tourist dollar and create jobs for locals, not to mention enriching the private companies which would, of course, be paying taxes.

That was Umno and Mahathir's "killer" and is the cause of land grabs everywhere today. This has actually rendered all land in Malaysia as unsafe investment.

The moment the land you own is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. In the name of development (read Umno's pockets), you will be paid peanuts but Umno and its cronies will develop and reap millions or billions of ringgit.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 21 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan